Legislative sessions in Idaho, Montana and Washington are more than a month old, and we are getting a rough idea of what could be in play as the finish line comes into sight. Before the legislative sessions began, we gave policymakers ten policy ideas they could pursue in the upcoming session. So far, roughly half of the recommendations have been introduced as legislation. Expand education choice options for families Bills have been introduced in Idaho, Washington, Wyoming and Montana for Education Savings Accounts. Montana also has legislation that calls for expansion of a tax credit scholarship program. Education freedom does not mean dismantling typical public schools. As the West Virginia Supreme Court recently ruled, policymakers can do both. Relevant legislation: Idaho - SB 1038 Wyoming - HB 194 Washington - HB 1615 Montana - HB 393 Additional Resources: Tired solutions won’t improve education outcomes for kids Types of education freedom options Require government meetings be live-streamed/recorded While there is no legal requirement for government agencies to live stream their meetings, legislators might want to consider the requirement as part of their open public meeting laws. Families are busy. They don’t always have the time to show up to a council or government agency meeting and spend four hours sitting through a long agenda. Furthermore, live stream meetings that are recorded provide citizens with an archive of what happened at the latest meeting. It is another way to hold elected officials accountable. Relevant legislation: Montana - HB 328 Additional Resources: No excuses: Government meetings should be live streamed CivicPlus: Five best practices for live streaming government meetings Continue and expand the use of remote testimony For decades, those living long distances from a state capitol had to brave icy conditions, closed passes or expensive flights to participate in the legislative process. But things changed during the COVID pandemic. Most states expanded remote testimony options. Remote testimony is now more broadly accepted than ever before. In the 21st century, there is no excuse for not allowing all citizens the opportunity to be involved in their government via technology. Remote testimony allows citizens the opportunity to give legislators their opinion on a policy being considered by any committee, without the hassle and cost of traveling to the state capitol. Relevant legislation: No legislation, but lawmakers have continued the use of remote testimony. Additional Resources: National Conference of State Legislatures Remote Testimony State by State Idaho State Legislature Remote Testimony Tips Ensure a legislative role in emergency powers Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the nation experienced executive overreach at both the federal and state level. In Washington state, for example, Governor Jay Inslee once famously claimed he was the only person in the state who had the capability to save lives. There’s no question that in a real emergency, governors need broad powers to act fast. Legislative bodies take time to assemble, so they can temporarily transfer their powers to the executive in an emergency. But when problems do last for extended periods, it is the responsibility of the legislatures to debate risks, benefits and trade-offs of various long-term approaches. Lawmakers may end up passing the very policies a governor would prefer, but they do it after deliberation as representatives of the people and do it in a public process. Relevant legislation: Washington - HB 1535 Additional Resources: Scoring executive powers in all 50 states National Conference of State Legislatures: Legislative oversight of executive emergency powers Slow the ballooning cost of Medicaid exapansion It has been four years now since voters in Idaho passed Medicaid expansion via ballot measure in a campaign pushed by Reclaim Idaho. It has been two years since the program was implemented. What are the results? There were promises of limited enrollment – 60,000. The latest numbers show more than double the projection and more than 1 in 4 Idahoans now enrolled. There were state-sought waivers to make changes to the program for the betterment of Idaho. Four were requested, and only one has been approved. How can lawmakers begin to rectify the situation with Medicaid? Idaho lawmakers can reject additional federal funding which, in turn, will limit the federal government’s role in Idaho’s program. Relevant legislation: Idaho - HB 122 Additional Resources: What to do about Idaho’s troubling Medicaid expansion Foundation for Government Accountability: How able-bodied adults and ineligible enrollees are fueling Idaho’s Medicaid enrollment surge There are still other policy ideas on the table that have not been introduced in any chamber. Lower state income tax rates and consider triggers It is clear, if Idaho and Montana are going to remain competitive (especially in the west), they need to consider further lowering their income tax rates, which are still relatively high. Montana has introduced a bill to lower the state's income tax, but it is not tied to future reductions based on revenue triggers. For example, if the state revenue consistently comes in at a rate higher than expected, the tax rate would automatically be lowered. This could negate the need for any special or extraordinary sessions of the legislature to address tax reductions as they would kick in at certain revenue levels. About a dozen states have tax triggers. The Tax Foundation says, “well-designed triggers limit the volatility and unpredictability associated with any change to revenue codes, and can be a valuable tool for states seeking to balance the economic impetus for tax reform with a governmental need for revenue predictability.” Additional Resources: The race to lower state income tax rates States inaugurate a flat tax revolution Consider a Public School Transparency Act School district budgets are a maze of numbers and legal jargon – if you can even find them. Unless they have an accounting degree, the average parent or taxpayer cannot take the time to read through and understand all the details. School leaders know this. So, too, do legislators. One policy idea is a Public School Transparency Act, which would require all public school districts, both on the first page of their budget and also on the front page of the district’s main website, to clearly report six simple things: (1) the total amount of dollars being spent, (2) how much is being spent per student, per year, (3) the percentage of dollars getting to the classroom, (4) the average administrator salary and benefits, (5) the average teacher salary and benefits, and (6) the ratio of administrators to teachers to students. Very little extra work would be needed to provide this data and make it assessable on paper and online. Most districts already have it hidden somewhere in their budget documents. They know where to look, whereas parents and taxpayers can get lost. This policy idea received more than 80% support in our 2022 Idaho Poll. Additional Resources: VIDEO: How can we restore some faith in public schools? IN-DEPTH STUDY: Restoring some faith in public schools with a Public School Transparency Act Allow voters in Washington a say on state income tax Washington state is one of the few states that has no state income tax. Washington voters have made it clear (more than 10 times) they want to keep it that way. Unfortunately, the Washington state legislature doesn’t appear to be in the mood to listen. In 2021, it passed a new 7% income tax on capital gains. The measure was, predictably, overturned by local courts in Washington as the state constitution makes it clear that property must be taxed uniformly, and courts have ruled a person’s income is their property. Now, the issue is at state Supreme Court. And, unfortunately, lawmakers have already introduced legislation to increase the tax. Instead, Washington lawmakers should allow voters the final say on this issue. Legislators should consider advancing a constitutional amendment that would allow for final clarification, simply asking voters if an income tax should be banned in the state. Additional Resources: IRS: Washington state capital gains tax is an income tax, not an excise tax Judge rules capital gains income tax illegal Adopt gas tax transparency at the pump Do consumers in the Mountain States really know what they are paying when they fill up at the gas station? The answer is likely no. That’s because gasoline is one of the few products we purchase where taxes and fees are built into the price. This means there is no transparency about the true financial burden placed on consumers. When policymakers adopt gas tax hikes, there can be little to no accountability built into the system. The fix to this lack of transparency is what has been called “truth-in-labeling.” Additional Resources: Bringing gas tax transparency to the Mountain States VIDEO: Why we need gas tax transparency Open collective bargaining talks to public oversight Collective bargaining talks are the negotiations government unions have with government officials over salaries, benefits and working conditions. Because they involve millions of dollars of taxpayer money, they should be open and transparent. This doesn’t mean the public participates in the negotiations, but the public should be allowed to observe the process. The state of Idaho knows this. Washington state, however, is a different story. While numerous attempts have been made to bring sunshine to the secretive process, government unions have resisted every step of the way in the Evergreen State – even as polls and actual ballot results continue to show overwhelming support. Ending collective bargaining secrecy and opening government union contract negotiations to the public, as other states and cities have done, is a practical and ethical way to achieve that standard. Additional Resources: Collective bargaining in government should never be a secret Better Cities Project: Collective bargaining transparency a win for workers and taxpayers

Montana could join the list of states seeking to ban required "diversity training" by public employees. Senate Bill 222 has been introduced by Sen. Jeremy Trebas of Great Falls. It would ban diversity, equity and inclusion training conducted by the state or any of its political subdivisions, including schools. The bill language says: It is an unlawful discriminatory practice for the state or any of its political subdivisions to subject an individual, as a condition of employment, to training, instruction, or any other required activity that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels the individual to believe any of the following concepts: (a) members of one class are morally superior to members of another class; (b) an individual, by virtue of the individual's class, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive (c) an individual's moral character or status as either privileged or oppressed is necessarily whether consciously or unconsciously; (d) an individual, by virtue of the individual's class, bears responsibility for or should be determined by the individual's class; (e) an individual, by virtue of the individual's class, should be discriminated against or receive (f) an individual, by virtue of the individual's class, bears personal responsibility for and must feel adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion; (g) virtues such as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the individual played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same class; or another class. SB 222 was heavily inspired by Florida’s “Stop WOKE” bill that took effect last summer. The Montana bill is a simple policy that protects the constitutional rights of workers - both free speech rights and the right to not be forced into compelled speech. The compelled speech doctrine sets out the principle that the government cannot force an individual or group to support certain expression.

One of the most important tasks for government is to be transparent. Some governments are better than others at accomplishing that goal. Idaho state Controller Brandon Woolf today launched a local section on Transparent Idaho - a website that includes thousands of pieces of data and government information, in an easy to use format. On Transparent Idaho, you can track how COVID relief dollars were spent, you can see showcases on the state budget and workforce, and you can even do an easy search to look at data in near real time. Want to see how a state agency's spending is progressing? There's a graphic for that. Care to find out how many Idaho state employees are making more than $70,000 per year? You can find that too. The new component is the local component, which allows you to dive into county, city and school board data like never before. For example, you can compare budgets of your county, and see where spending has increased or decreased. This is an example from Ada County. A plethora of city and school data is also available. Having all of this data available at your fingerprints is an enormous victory for the citizens of Idaho. Controller Woolf and his staff deserve major kudos.

Policymakers across the region and nation are always looking for ways to increase voter turnout and community involvement. Idaho lawmakers may have found at least one solution that can also save taxpayer money. House Bill 58 passed the State Affairs committee today by an overwhelming 11-2 vote. The bill would prohibit school bond and levy elections from occurring in any election but the May primary and the November general election. Right now, counties can spend thousands of dollars for these special elections, which can be hidden from voters in March and August off-cycle elections. Lower turnout means more power for special interest groups to get out their voters. There is a bounty of research that suggests this type of policy change is a good thing. Professor Sarah Anzia wrote that the low turnout for off-cycle elections increases the influence of organized interest groups like teachers’ unions and municipal workers. "While such groups tend to vote at high rates regardless of when the election is held, the low turnout in off-cycle years enhances the effectiveness of their mobilization efforts and makes them a proportionately larger bloc." Professor Mark Meredith of MIT wrote: "Direct democracy is often justified normatively on the grounds that it represents the will of the median voter. This justification is less compelling if agenda-setters are selecting the median voter. This paper demonstrates that agenda-setters can use election timing power to select voters that will be more favorable towards their policy interests. As a result, both researchers and policy makers need to seriously consider how the rules surrounding agenda establishment in direct democracy affect economic and political outcomes." Research from the Foundation for Government Accountability shows the impact of changing school elections to on-cycle. In Texas, for example, a 2006 law changed nearly 20 percent of school districts to on-cycle elections. As a result, turnout significantly increased in these school districts relative to those districts who continued holding off-cycle elections. In California, a 1986 law allowed school districts to move off-cycle elections to on-cycle years. By 2008, roughly two-thirds of school districts had moved to on-cycle elections. Controlling for other factors, this simple change increased voter turnout in school board elections by an astounding 150 percent. This isn't about making school bond or levies more difficult to pass. It's about making sure those who have to pay the bill are involved in the decision making process.

If you take out a mortgage, you typically know what your payment is going to be each month, and from year to year. But if you approve a school bond in Idaho, you may only get a range. That's because Idaho code 33-802A allows for school districts to collect up to 21 months worth of payments in a 12 month period. This can be an excellent tool for paying off debt more quickly. But does that happen? And is it really what taxpayers approved? Consider the language used to describe many of last year's school bonds: Middleton School District "Principal not to exceed $59,435,000, to be paid off within 20 years; anticipated interest rate is 3.77% per annum." Vallivue School District "Principal not to exceed $55 million, to be paid off within 20 years; anticipated interest rate is 3.78% per annum." "Not to exceed" and "within" are the key phrases there. Legislation was introduced in the Senate Local Government & Taxation Committee today by Rexburg Senator Doug Ricks which would lower 21 month period to 15 months. Senator Ricks discussed this issue with me on our Peak Policy program in November. As Senator Ricks mentioned, a school district in Idaho Falls was able to pay off its 20-year bond in just 12 years. Again, this might seem like a good thing. But it was not necessarily what voters approved. And it also allows school districts to pass more bonds in a shorter period of time. The reform introduced today is an important step in increasing confidence in elections and providing more transparency for taxpayers when considering school construction bonds.

If additional education choice is going to come to the Gem State, it won't be originating in the Idaho House Education Committee. Today, the committee voted 9-7 to kill a bill that would have created very limited Education Savings Accounts (ESA's) in the state of Idaho. HB 289 would have allowed students from families with a gross income of less than $70,000 the opportunity to sign up for an ESA, which could be used on education expenses including tutoring, private school tuition, special needs services and more. Rep. Lance Clow wrote the legislation with tremendous safeguards and limitations. It even called for a separate allocation of funds to ensure it wouldn't be perceived as taking money away from public schools. Originally, the committee didn't even allow the bill to receive a hearing. At that time, legislators continually called the bill an "ESA voucher," even though there is no such thing. Today, the bill was heard and public testimony was allowed. Here's what I told the committee. Still, lawmakers voted against advancing the bill to the floor. One representative said it didn't comply with the state's constitutional requirements. We have written previously about why that's just not true. There are two relevant provisions of Idaho’s constitution that have been used to cast doubt upon the legality of any kind of individual credit or grant to Idaho families for education purposes. Article 9, §1 creates a duty to “establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools.” Many states have similar so-called “uniformity clauses,” which establish a public system of schools, but do not make that system mandatory for the state’s students—something we now take for granted. A century ago, Oregon tried to expand its public education system by making it compulsory for virtually all students. The U.S. Supreme Court roundly rejected the attempt, stating: “The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations." In other words, children do not belong to the state, and the purpose of education is to prepare them for life, not to homogenize them. A public system is one avenue for educating and preparing children, but it is not the only avenue. Parents have a duty and a right to educate their children. Article 9, §1 creates a baseline duty for the state of Idaho, but it does not prohibit the state from promoting education through means outside of the public system. The public interest law firm Institute for Justice argues, “Uniformity Clauses were never intended to impose a limit on educational innovation and creativity in the way legislators fulfill their obligation to provide children with a basic education. Rather, they were simply intended to ensure that the public school system has certain minimal characteristics.” One could make a policy argument about why it would be preferable for the state to subsidize a public system only, but a legal argument based on Idaho’s Uniformity Clause is not likely to be successful before Idaho’s Supreme Court based on Idaho caselaw and legal precedent in other states. A similar debate just played out in West Virginia, where the constitution requires a “thorough and efficient” education system. West Virginia recently passed an education freedom law called the “Hope Scholarship.” But opponents pointed to the state constitution’s “thorough and efficient” language and said it wasn’t permitted. The West Virginia Supreme Court disagreed. From the majority’s ruling: “We find that the West Virginia Constitution does not prohibit the Legislature from enacting the Hope Scholarship Act in addition to providing for a thorough and efficient system of free schools. The Constitution allows the Legislature to do both of these things.”

Unions are not what they used to be. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has released its latest data on union membership in the United States. It shows the union membership rate is down to just 10.1% - the lowest on record. Union membership rates for 2022 in the Mountain States are not the lowest, but certainly not the highest. Luckily, Idaho is a right to work state meaning you cannot be forced to be part of a union as a condition of your employment. Still, one of the state's largest unions - the Idaho Education Association - wields tremendous power at the state capitol. Tax returns show the IEA collects almost $4 million a year in membership dues. Washington and Montana, however, are not right to work states. Not only can you be required to be part of the union (with very few opt-out provisions), but in many cases in many states, the government or workplaces can be required to collect dues from employee paychecks and distribute them to union bank accounts. The "check off clause," as it is known, exists in many union contracts. It's understandable why unions would want this provision kept in place. After all, it's much easier to simply remove the dues from a paycheck than force a worker to write a check after they already have their earnings. Idaho Representative Heather Scott has introduced a bill to prevent that from happening in Idaho. From HB 91: "The state executive, legislative, and judicial branches and any subdivision, public officer, or public employee of the state executive, legislative, or judicial branch shall be prohibited from using public funds to pay membership fees or dues to any organization unless required to do so by law or unless required to maintain professional licensure for the purposes of fulfilling and maintaining state employment." If workers want to be part of a union, that is up to them. But taxpayers are not the union's collection agency and government isn't the enforcement arm.

The statistics are eye-opening, and concerning. Only 24% of millennials in the U.S. understand basic financial principles. About half of high-schoolers say they learn about investing from social media. Fewer than half the states require high schools to teach financial literacy. The stats may change in Idaho, however, thanks to legislation that has been introduced by Rep. James Petzke. House Bill 92 would require financial literacy courses in all Idaho high schools - public and charter. Currently, Idaho requires one economics course for a high school diploma. But the Nation's Report Card on Financial Literacy says the state still has a long way to go. It recommends Idaho "needs to require high school stand-alone personal finance course and implement grade-specific K-8 financial literacy standards." Idaho received a "C" on the report card. Its neighbors in Washington and Montana received a "B" and "D" respectively. As Forbes points out, with so many Americans living paycheck to paycheck, financial literacy requirements can only help. The classes may also cause many younger Americans to think twice about taking out enormous student loans. Some remarkable stats come from states that do and do not have financial literacy requirements. Moneyrates.com divided states with the requirement versus states without it. Here are the results:

As lawmakers in Idaho, Washington and Wyoming consider numerous proposals to bring more education choice to their states, Mountain States Policy Center thought it might be helpful to have a guide of the elements that will make the program successful. As we recommended in our study Education Choice Improves Outcomes, policymakers should always focus the policy they are proposing on a simple question: does the policy allow those closest to the child the ability to make the decision? Here are the key elements to a successful education choice plan: Flexibility An education savings account should always contain maximum flexibility, to be used on tutoring, private school tuition, homeschooling, speech or occupational therapy, technology, and that which can help improve a child’s educational experience. Avoid class warfare The socioeconomic background of children shouldn’t matter – investments should be focused on educating all students. Policies should avoid separating children into economic classes. If policymakers ultimately decide to place income limits on the program, it should be indexed to inflation and should also consider the size of the family. Any limits should also have a sunset and require review by future lawmakers. Avoid enrollment caps Placing enrollment caps on any education choice program is unfair and unwise. Policymakers should avoid setting arbitrary limits. Again, if lawmakers initially choose to adopt enrollment caps, they should add a sunsetting provision to allow more students to participate in the future. Avoid prior year school requirement All students should qualify to participate in an education choice program – whether they’ve lived in a state for six months or six years. Students who currently don’t use the public school system should also qualify, as their families pay into public education just the same. Parental requirements Parents should always be required to spend the money on educational expenses and in accordance with rules and requirements set forth by the state. Most states require parents to sign a contract pledging to do so. Oversight and accountability The state should always have oversight and accountability of the program to ensure dollars are being spent wisely. An oversight board can be created and the state Attorney General and/or Treasurer can be tasked with performing random audits. Any funds used inappropriately should be immediately revoked. Funds can roll over An education choice program that includes education savings accounts should always allow funds to roll over and gain interest. Doing so can save resources for taxpayers and families. Can be used for college Policymakers should allow for any unused funds in an education savings account to be spent on in-state college tuition. This can lower the burden for families and also provide incentive to students to get a college degree locally. Furthermore, it can expand the goal of getting more students to stay and work locally. Extra help for special needs children Policymakers should consider either having a supplemental, separate ESA for special needs children, or allow extra funding in a broad ESA for special needs kids who may need extra assistance. Religious freedom No education choice option should ever require a school or parent who takes the funds to forfeit their religious beliefs. This is a violation of the Constitution and recent Supreme Court rulings.

Public charter schools in Idaho and Washington have been called the “have-nots.” Even though most are successful, they can’t pass bonds or levies for facility costs for kids. These leave many of these public schools scratching for funding to simply put a roof over the kids’ heads. I once heard a story about a local charter school that had a boiler go out in the middle of winter. Students had to stay warm with extra layers of clothes because the school couldn’t afford to pay to fix the boiler. This is an outrage and it is discriminatory against the students who use a charter school. Education shouldn’t be about your zip code or your financial status (part of the reason why education choice is so important). Luckily, there are several bills that have been introduced in both the Idaho and Washington state legislatures that could offer public charter schools and their students a lift. Senate Bill 1042 (Idaho) – Lifts the cap on program to allow well-established charter schools to obtain lower interest rates on bonds, also allows schools that serve 100% at-risk students to apply to use even if they don’t meet academic standards Senate Bill 1043 (Idaho) – Creates a revolving loan fund to help new and young public charter schools obtain lower interest rates on loans House Bill 1418 (Washington) – Allows charter schools to apply for state grants on same basis as regular public school district, also requires Superintendent of Public Instruction to distribute enrichment grants in the amount similar to public schools Terry Ryan, the CEO of the Bluum education nonprofit has spoken eloquently on this issue: Despite the funding inequities Idaho’s public charter schools are an important part of the solution to overcrowded classrooms. This fact goes largely unrecognized and unappreciated by study groups and the traditional education stakeholder groups. Over the last seven years Idaho’s public charter school sector has built 20+ school facilities for some 8,000 public school students at more than $150 million in construction costs. Some of these are brand new buildings, but others are facilities located in old department stores or other buildings that were going unused. In its research, Bluum also found ““an average-sized charter school in Idaho must operate on average with nine fewer teachers, diverting funding intended for student instruction to pay for facilities.” This graphic from the report seems to tell the entire story: The tools being proposed by lawmakers in both Washington and Idaho would go a long way toward helping charter schools and their students.

It's not that difficult. Throughout the COVID pandemic, local and state governments figured out ways to use technology to keep their meetings open and transparent. Whether it was via Zoom, GoToMeeting or any other streaming platform, we all stayed connected and open meetings were still open meetings. But just because COVID is over doesn't mean the transparency should end. It's encouraging to see this bill - House Bill 328 - introduced in the Montana state legislature. The bill would require county commissions, city and town councils, school district boards, and local health boards to record and make the audio and video available to the public within one business day after the meeting. The mandate isn't coming without funding - in fact, more than $270,000 is allocated in the bill to help local governments get the equipment they need. However, it should be noted much of this could be done with something as simple as a Zoom account for $15 per month. This legislation follows an MSPC recommendation, made here back in September. We hope to see it introduced in many other states. There is no legal requirement for government agencies in Idaho to livestream their meetings – but perhaps there should be. Families are busy. They don’t always have the time to show up to a council or government agency meeting and spend four hours sitting through a long agenda. Like it or not, we live in a world run by technology. Any government agency or elected official committed to transparency should welcome the livestreaming and recording of meetings.

April 15th has come and gone. Since it fell on a weekend, Americans have until Tuesday to submit federal tax returns. But that won't mean you're done with taxes for the year. Tax filing day should not be confused with tax freedom day. Tax freedom day is the day when Americans have earned enough money to pay their total tax bill for the year. In other words, in many states, for the first three and a half months of the year, you've worked for the government. Unfortunately, as the federal burden increase, the national tax freedom day seems to be coming later and later each year. This year, tax freedom day arrives on April 18th nationally. But tax freedom day also varies by state, as each state has its own localized tax burden. Idaho and Montana have typically enjoyed earlier tax freedom days. Washington state's tax freedom day is coming later and later. It will likely increase again next year as the full impact of the new income tax on capital gains is realized. So go ahead, enjoy getting your taxes submitted this week. In Idaho, Wyoming and Montana, you've worked long enough to pay your burden. For Washingtonians, don't fall into the trap of believing you're done working for the government.

The ink is still drying on Idaho’s new state budget, but we’re getting a closer look at where legislators decided to spend the most money. Idaho’s general fund budget increased to $5.1 billion this session, a 12% hike from the year before. Here are the top 10 allocations: 1.) Public school support - $2.698 billion (up 16.4%) Note: Over the past decade, Idaho has increased K-12 spending 106%. 2.) Division of Medicaid - $856.3 million (up 3.2%) Note: This represents the state portion of Medicaid expansion and not the total spending that is split between the federal government and the state. 3.) Colleges and Universities - $353.9 million (up 4.7%) 4.) Department of Correction - $321.7 million (up 7.5%) 5.) Department of Health and Welfare - $214 million (up 10%) 6.) Career Technical Education - $76.5 million (up 4.5%) 7.) Judicial Branch - $62.4 million (up 5.9%) 8.) Community Colleges - $60.9 million (up 7%) 9.) Idaho State Police - $51.8 million (up 21.2%) 10.) Department of Juvenile Corrections - $48.5 million (up 5.4%) While these spending increases are significant, other parts of the budget saw much larger hikes. For example, the state Board of Education’s budget increased a whopping 338.6%. The Secretary of State’s budget went up 228.4%. And the budget for the office of the Lieutenant Governor surged 44.4%. The Secretary of State’s allocation was mainly for an upgrade to the state’s election system, as Phil McGrane detailed in his original budget request. Part of the increase for the state Board of Education is allocated to the popular Empowering Parents program. But it also funds more than a dozen new, full time positions. You can read the full budget here.

When Idaho voters passed Medicaid expansion in 2018, a lot of promises were made. Few, however, have panned out. There were promises of limited enrollment – 60,000. The latest numbers show more than double the projection and more than 1 in 4 Idahoans now enrolled. There were promises it would be a good financial deal and lower health care costs. That hasn't happened either. The 2023 Idaho legislature's budget increases the Medicaid state spending to $856.3 million - a 25% increase from just four years ago. If the trend holds, Idaho will hit one billion dollars in Medicaid spending in the next few years. Proponents of the system claim it's a good deal because the federal government is covering so much of the actual cost. Just a few months ago, state legislators were told Idaho would have to spend more if it ended Medicaid expansion. How is that possible? It's true that, comparatively speaking, federal taxpayers cover more than state taxpayers- so limiting or ending the expansion limits or ends the federal government's funding. However, it's worth pointing out that state taxpayers are federal taxpayers too. And, judging by the federal government's current financial position, promises of federal funds might not always be there. If a bankrupt relative bought you a vehicle you couldn't afford, but said he'd make most of the payments, would you sign up for the deal? It’s not as if there were no other options. Before Medicaid expansion in Idaho, those who were eligible could join the Your Health Idaho program and get “advance premium tax credits” to help reduce their insurance costs. Medicaid coverage, on the other hand, can be extremely limiting. Not only do providers run into billing problems, but reimbursement rates are also low. Many health care providers will only take a limited number of patients. So, while citizens may have coverage, it might not mean much. Medicaid, Medicare and Private insurance acceptance rates:

The Montana Senate is now considering a bill that would offer special needs children access to Education Savings Accounts worth roughly $6,816. A hearing was held this week, allowing opponents yet another opportunity to use the same tired arguments as before. HB 393 passed the House by a vote of 66-32. This is one of several education choice bills introduced in the Treasure State so far this year, but it has the most momentum. HB 393 would allow parents who choose to sign up funds for their child that can be used on private school tuition and fees, textbooks, curriculum, tutoring, education therapies, transportation and other education related expenses. It can be a tremendously helpful tool for parents who might not have the resources they need to get their child the extra help he or she requires. One testifier called the proposal “inappropriate” and claimed it would “take money from public schools.” Another called it “anti-public schools.” A representative of the League of Women Voters claimed there was “no research” to show education choice would help improve outcomes. (Most credible, major studies have concluded that educational outcomes improve when education choice is permitted - not only for students taking advantage of education choice, but also with those who did not.) The Montana Federation of Public Employees claimed “students would be harmed” when they are allowed to take their education dollars and go someplace else. One Senator asked for an updated fiscal note to include the cost of litigation – indicating that she believed lawsuits would be filed to stop the program. Closing comments were provided by Senator Sue Vinton, the sponsor. They are a must-watch.

How much education spending will be enough? It's a fair question to ask, especially following last week's conclusion of the 2023 Idaho Legislative session. The session featured yet another double-digit increase in K-12 spending in Idaho. The public school support budget increased another 16.4%. Our Idaho Poll conducted late last year showed strong support for K-12 education spending. But the vast majority of Idahoans likely don't know how much we're actually spending - and how much it has increased. The most recent approved budget in Idaho hikes K-12 funding to $2.698 billion. The most recent enrollment numbers now show 289,480 students in Idaho's K-12 system. This means the state general fund allocation alone is increasing to $9,323 per student. That number does not include any local or federal funding, which accounts for much more. Ten years ago, Idaho was spending $1.3 billion. Over the past decade, K-12 state spending has ballooned 106.2%. Accepting a 106% increase would be easier if outcomes were also improving. So far, however, they have been stagnant. In a previous publication, we asked what amount will be sufficient and how will we know when we are spending enough? Unfortunately, these questions are never answered. There is little correlation between education spending and achievement. If spending were the key, the United States would have the best schools in the world, as the U.S. spends more than any other developed nation. It’s no longer good enough to simply say all problems would be solved if only the system had more money. States that spend the most don’t necessarily have the best outcomes, and states that spend the least don’t have the worst outcomes. The number one priority of any plan to increase education funding should be student outcomes. What is the measurement whereby we can determine if these increases will help children? What are the goals?

The Montana House has approved a bill that would offer special needs children access to Education Savings Accounts worth roughly $6,816. HB 393 passed the House by a vote of 66-32. It will now head to the Montana Senate for a hearing on Monday, April 17th. This is one of several education choice bills introduced in the Treasure State so far this year, but it has the most momentum. HB 393 would allow parents who choose to sign up funds for their child that can be used on private school tuition and fees, textbooks, curriculum, tutoring, education therapies, transportation and other education related expenses. It can be a tremendously helpful tool for parents who might not have the resources they need to get their child the extra help he or she requires. Most credible, major studies have concluded that educational outcomes improve when education choice is permitted - not only for students taking advantage of education choice, but also with those who did not. "A review of the empirical research on private school choice finds evidence that private school choice delivers some benefits to participating students—particularly in the area of educational attainment—and tends to help, albeit to a limited degree, the achievement of students who remain in public schools."​ -Peabody Journal of Education, Volume 91, Issue 4 While nearby states struggle to advance education choice, Montana seems on the verge of making it a reality.

What a difference a border can make. Washington gas prices are surging, forcing many folks in the eastern part of the state to northern Idaho for a cheaper fill-up. That means more revenue for Idaho's transportation system. The comparison in cost is more stark than ever before. Triple A says the average price for a gallon of gas in Washington is currently $4.56 per gallon. In Idaho, the price is $3.63 per gallon. There's always been a difference between Idaho and Washington prices - after all, Washington's gas tax is nearly 20 cents more per gallon. This year, however, the price difference is more extreme - especially since January. Why? What happened in January to cause the spike? Some media outlets, including this article in today's Spokesman-Review, are trying to lay the blame at OPEC and oil companies. But oil prices today are only slightly higher than they were in January. Unfortunately, the reporter makes no mention of the biggest issue that is causing prices to rise in Washington - the state's new energy taxes. Those energy taxes - which some estimates peg at about 50-cents more per gallon - started in January. That just so happens to be the time when we saw Washington's price beginning to rise. It was pretty clear that prices were going to increase as a result of the new taxes, as Todd Myers of the Washington Policy Center points out. Even Washington state officials who supported the energy taxes admitted there would be some impact. Those who live on the border with Idaho have options to cross over to fill up. But for those in central and western Washington, the pain will continue - and the evidence of what is to blame is crystal clear.

Lawmakers in Washington State are moving forward with a bill to abolish the state's requirement for non-binding advisory votes on tax increases. Senate Bill 5082 has already passed the House and the Senate and is likely to be signed by the Governor. While the advisory votes results didn't mean much to lawmakers (they were constantly ignored), they did serve as a way to inform voters throughout the Evergreen State that the financial burden of government was increasing. Oftentimes, voters would learn about what the legislature did on taxes through these votes. In Idaho this legislative session, lawmakers attempted to put an advisory vote on the ballot regarding "funding private schools." At the time, we called it a mistake. There are right and wrong ways to place questions on the ballot. In principle, advisory votes after a bill has been passed can serve a purpose - but only if they actually use the bill summary so voters are well-informed. This is what happened last year with Idaho voters were asked their thoughts about the income tax cut and education spending bill adopted by lawmakers during the special session. This advisory vote example was on complete details, not talking points. Votes on an issue that hasn't been passed by the legislative body are better-served to be binding referendums with the actual language of what is being proposed. If lawmakers want the voters to weigh in on a policy, let them truly make the decision with the actual details in a meaningful way.

The 16th edition of a state economic competitiveness index is giving Idaho and Wyoming high marks. But Washington's position continues to worsen. Montana doesn't do much better. Rich States, Poor States is authored by Dr. Arthur B. Laffer, economist Stephen Moore and Chief Economist Jonathan Williams of the American Legislative Exchange Council. The authors use 15 economic policy sections to rank how states are performing when it comes to competitiveness and growth. Overall, Utah ranked 1st followed by North Carolina, Arizona, Idaho and Oklahoma. Idaho's ranking for the past three years has continued to improve, from 11th, to 5th and now 4th best. Wyoming also improved this year, from 10th to 6th. Montana and Washington, however, rank in the lower half, at 33rd and 34th, respectively. Here's where the states rank in the different categories. Idaho Personal income tax - 34th Property tax burden - 14th Minimum wage - 1st (tied) Number of public employees per 10,000 people - 7th Debt service as a share of revenue - 4th Recently-legislated tax changes - 1st Average worker's compensation cost - 35th State liability system (tort management) - 9th Montana Personal income tax - 36th Property tax burden - 37th Minimum wage - 22nd Number of public employees per 10,000 people - 36th Debt service as a share of revenue - 10th Recently-legislated tax changes - 25th Average worker's compensation cost - 36th State liability system (tort management) - 7th Washington Personal income tax - 1st (tied) Property tax burden - 18th Minimum wage - 50th Number of public employees per 10,000 people - 21st Debt service as a share of revenue - 42nd Recently-legislated tax changes - 27th Average worker's compensation cost - 27th State liability system (tort management) - 26th Wyoming Personal income tax - 1st (tied) Property tax burden - 36th Minimum wage - 1st (tied) Number of public employees per 10,000 people - 50th Debt service as a share of revenue - 1st Recently-legislated tax changes - 21st Average worker's compensation cost - 44th State liability system (tort management) - 4th The research shows both Idaho and Montana need to work on lowering personal income tax rates and the cost of worker's comp. Wyoming, too, suffers from a high worker's comp system - the result of a state monopoly. Washington state's minimum wage puts it at a competitive disadvantage, as does its debt service.